Flight Blog

A common misperception about air service in Springfield is that the airlines always charge higher fares at Springfield when compared to fares in Tulsa, Kansas City, St. Louis, and more recently, in Branson.

The misperception was driven home again, this morning, by Christopher Dixon, an opinion writer for the Springfield News-Leader. In his opinion piece today Mr. Dixon laments the loss of the Southwest Airlines (SWA) service at the Branson airport.

(Here’s the back story — AirTran Airlines began service to the Branson airport shortly after the airport opened in the spring of 2009. The service was subsidized — meaning that AirTran was paid to provide the service. In September of 2010 AirTran was bought out by SWA. SWA inherited the Branson route, along with every other AirTran route. The merged airline continued serving Branson, using AirTran branded airplanes, until January of 2013. After that it started using airplanes with the Southwest brand. It was also about this time that the subsidies for the route ended. Even without the subsidy Southwest gave it a go, but announced in December that it's dropping the service in June of 2014.)

His dismay over the loss of SWA service is understandable — Southwest is a good airline with great customer service. The loss of Southwest in the market is regrettable. What’s less understandable is the message the writer sends about the Springfield airport: fares are always higher. This simply isn’t the case —

In the past few weeks airlines offered the following fares from Springfield; all fares are roundtrip:

Las Vegas: $211

Los Angeles (LAX): $237

Orlando: $136

St. Petersburg: $135

New York City (LGA): $218

Chicago (ORD): $161

I could go on, but you get the idea: it doesn’t always cost more to fly from Springfield. Does it sometimes? Sure — especially if the customer books at the minute. But here’s the bottom line: please don’t assume that the airlines always charge more in Springfield. Shop around; compare. And remember — just because it’s more expensive one time you check, it doesn’t mean that’s it’s always more expensive.

And while it probably goes without saying, remember to take other costs into consideration. If you’re thinking about driving to another airport consider the cost of gasoline. The cost of meals on the road. The cost of your time. The cost of a possible hotel room near the airport. All those things add up.

Here at the airport we spend significant time listening to airline customers complain about airline customer service — especially when it comes to making changes to itineraries. The customer has tried calling the airline; they end up on what seems indefinite hold. They try websites. They try apps. Invariably, my response to the airline customer is: "why don't you use a travel agent?"

That question doesn't immediately compute — "a what...!! Oh ..."

In one sense we've all been trained to forget about travel agents — they are soooo 20th Century, so pre-1995. Today all we have to do is use the Internet and all its progeny to deal with an airline. Well, you now know how frustrating that can be ...

It's not just the magic spell of the Internet that made us forget about travel agents; the airlines did their part too. They prefer that all transactions go directly through them. That way they don't have to give the travel agent a cut.

The folk at Google have made it a little bit easier to navigate our terminal building — take a look at this screen shot:

This screen shot is from an iPhone. It shows the floor plan of the terminal as viewed on Google Maps. It's part of Google's Indoor Map program.

The floor plan is visible on smart phones, and other mobile devices, as long as the satellite view is turned off. It’s also visible on desktop computer web browsers, as long as Google Maps is in the classic configuration, with the satellite view turned off.

Many of us have summer projects involving paint. Paint the house. Paint the kitchen. The deck. The bathroom. The kid's room. The runway ...

Yes, every summer we paint the runways. No nice mauve or baby blue — we go strictly by the book: black, yellow, white. And we don't stop with the runways — we do the taxiways, the tarmacs, and any other piece of pavement that requires it.

Painting at the airport can be tricky at times: the painting machines are notoriously fussy; the summer heat drives pavement temperatures to well over a hundred degrees; sometimes you have to quit painting in a hurry and let an expected flight land. And then there's the matter of neatness. If everything isn't perfect the Federal Aviation Administration can ding us during our annual safety inspection.

We thought you might like to have a behind the scenes peak at our annual painting ritual ...

The first thing you have to do is close the runway that needs painting. Among other things it requires hauling a big X to each end of the runway. The Xs have bright lights mounted to them.

Approaching pilots will see them and know that the runway is closed. The photo gives an idea of how big the painting project is. The distance from the X to the other end of the runway (in the background) is approximately 7,000 feet. And all those pavement markings you see have to be repainted.

As mentioned earlier, painting machines are fussy; sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. Nozzles get clogged. Air pressure on the lines can go south in a heart beat. Alignment mechanisms go askew and suddenly you've painted a crooked line.

The job of keeping things on the straight and narrow falls on the backs of the Airfield Maintenance team. In the photo on the left Kevin Rhoten (L) and David Chamberlin (R) discuss the latest round of orneriness from the painting machine. That tangle of tubes shoot three colors of paint, plus tiny glass beads. The beads make the paint reflective at night.

The painting machine is mounted on the back of a small flatbed truck. The arrangement includes barrels of paint, beads, a generator to run an air compressor (that clanks all the time), and just enough room for the an operator. In the photo on the right-below David Chamberlin makes sure the paint goes where it's supposed to.

A bright, shiny Airbus A319 swooped into Springfield today (Tuesday) as it ended one leg of its first Phoenix-Springfield run. We don't see many Airbus at SGF so it was a special occasion. The 319 is part of Allegiant's plan to grow its fleet, while maintaining its low-cost business structure. That low-cost structure translates into low fares for Allegiant customers.

Allegiant started its business by buying used MD-80 airplanes. While other airlines were getting rid of 80s Allegiant was picking them up for a song a dance. From Allegiant's point-of-view, 80s made perfect sense: they were (and are) solid, reliable aircraft that were cheap to buy. But they do have their downside ...

80's are getting older; they require more maintenance. On long haul flights 80s need lots of runway for takeoff. They're noisy. They aren't very fuel efficient. The 319 addresses these deficiencies with flair. Here's an example ...

In its 2012 annual report Allegiant says this about the 319's fuel consumption: "Our 156 seat A-319 burns over 200 gallons less per hour of operation than our 166-seat MD-80."

Needless to say that's a BIG SAVINGS!

The 319 is also quiter; it can fly twice a far as an 80; it needs less runway for takeoff. And, like the 80, 319s are now showing up on the used airplane market for a fraction of the cost of a new airplane.

Allegiant says it plans to add 16 of them to the fleet in the near future. Allegiant sums it up this way: "We believe these Airbus aircraft will allow for low aircraft ownership costs consistent with our business model."